Unhealthy eating habits, courtesy of food stamps

For decades the United States has fought hunger through food stamps -- now the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. While somewhat successful at alleviating traditional hunger (being underfed and malnourished), SNAP does little to combat obesity, and may even exacerbate it.

When Congress authorized food stamps 50 years ago, the obesity rate was 13 percent among adults; it now surpasses 30 percent. For children, the rate was less than 5 percent and now nears 20 percent. Back then, more Americans cooked their own food, and the food stamp program aimed to facilitate low-income persons' purchase of food for home preparation.

We now live in a food environment saturated with convenient and deceptively "cheap" foods, such as soda and processed meals, which are often indirectly subsidized by the federal government's support for agribusiness. For those with less expendable income and time, like many SNAP recipients, these foods are appealing in the short term. Over the long term, however, high-calorie, low-nutrient foods contribute to obesity and other health problems. In a vicious cycle of government spending, these expensive medical problems tax the Medicaid and Medicare systems.

A recent federal court case in Oregon illustrates SNAP's design flaws. Although SNAP prohibits using funds to buy restaurant meals, it excludes only "hot foods" from purchase for home consumption. Frozen pizzas, therefore, are as eligible as fresh fruits and vegetables for purchase with SNAP benefits.

In 2010, owners of Little Caesars franchises in Oregon, relying on erroneous guidance from USDA's Portland field office, qualified to accept SNAP benefits by establishing separate corporate entities to sell only cold, take-and-bake pizzas, albeit from the same location at which they already sold hot pizzas.

When the USDA later realized the error of its initial guidance, it withdrew SNAP authorization from the franchisees, prompting a lawsuit. Last month, the franchisees received a favorable preliminary decision from U.S. District Judge Garr King restoring their SNAP qualification.

King's ruling interprets arcane language in the federal code about what "firms" and "establishments" may accept SNAP benefits, and on the law, it may well be right. The larger issue, however, is a flawed federal program that pays for unhealthy foods. A take-and-bake pizza, like most frozen pizzas, is laden with fat and salt. Two slices of a pepperoni pie have more than half the recommended daily amount of sodium for an adult.

New York City recently proposed prohibiting SNAP recipients from purchasing soda, the consumption of which is strongly linked to obesity, with their benefits, but the USDA declined to grant permission. This was unfortunate, since the obesity crisis demands systematic change to SNAP.

SNAP should no longer treat equally all food purchased for home consumption. Limitations on certain foods should be considered; at the least, SNAP dollars should go further when spent on healthier foods, like fruits and vegetables, as is now the case at some farmers markets.

Anyone is free to buy a take-and-bake pizza with his own money, but why should the government pick up the tab?

Paul Diller is an associate professor at Willamette University College of Law.